Abbildungen der Seite

British colonists. If they did, they would form a part of an AngloIndian nation, but as it is they belong to no nation whatever. The position they really occupy is that either of helpless cripples or of captured slaves—to invest whom with the same rights and privileges as freeborn sons, would be to subvert entirely the existing state of relationship. By and by, probably, the quondam nations of India, by rising in the social scale, and by intermarriages with the privileged class, will draw nearer and nearer to the sphere of its mainspring workings, until they at last become a part of that community, and as a necessary consequence, of the higher unity, the parent stem; or they may regain their independence, and find a centre of common action in themselves. Until, however, they so attain to a national existence, our Principle gives no sanction to the regulation of religious instruction by this * vox populi.

The case of Ireland cannot be considered analogous to that of India of the present day. It would be to the case of the “India of the future” which we have been contemplating as possibly a more or less remote contingency, with this difference, that in our imaginary state the Hindoos would constitute the majority, whereas the Irish are in a helpless minority. It was evidently a suicidal policy on the part of the Irish, possessing as they do, interests diametrically opposed to those of the inhabitants of Great Britain, to enter into union with them without making provision, by reservation, for the upholding of their special interests. But they had no choice. Their first connection with England was brought about by conquest, just as much as was the case with the Punjaub, and the advantages possessed by then over the nations of this territory, arise from their superiority in every respect—they being pretty much on an equality with their conquerors. Had the Union been similar in manner to that of England and Scotland, they might easily have reserved to themselves, as the Scotch did, the management of ecclesiastical affairs—we, at least, do not think that the nature of their religion would have proved an obstacle per se.

Suppose Romanism the religion of Scotland, and why not also the Act of Union consummated ? To demand now-a-days, however, that this privilege should be conferred, or that the Government of this nation should act for a minority as that minority would do if it had the power, is absurd—is, in truth, immoral. To confer the privilege would be to subvert the divinely-constituted order of things, ("the powers that be are ordained of God,")—to act with the conscience of the minority would be a positive sin. The Irish may one day be again numbered among the nations; or they may gain the alliance of a preponderance of the subjects of the common ruler; or, once more, they themselves may make the interests of the inhabitants of the sister-kingdoms their own—in one or other of these cases they will enjoy their full rights—in none other are they entitled to do so.

To come to the practical part of the subject, then, the above reasoning is intended to show that the establishment of Romanist schools we may add of Romanist churches-- in Ireland, is un


justifiable. Maynooth forms no exception to this rule. What then? is the country to be covered with Protestant schools — with Protestant churches—which must of necessity remain all but empty? Not at all. As regards schools, our Principles justify the establishment of secular schools wherever there is an adequate demandwere there, therefore, no Protestants in Ireland, the whole people would choose secular schools and get a sufficient number; and if it is fair to make the possession of this privilege contingent upon the enrolment of a certain number of pupils, so must it be to make the privilege of having Protestant schools established, similarly contingent. We would thus have large portions of Ireland supplied exclusively with secular schools, and only see Protestant establishments where Protestants were to be found in sufficient numbers. We think, however, that our Principles will bear a still more favourable interpretation. One of these asserts that religious instruction is per se desirable; and holding this, it could not be a satisfactory state of matters in our eyes, that well nigh an entire country should be deprived of so great a desideratum. An inquirer into the question of what religious teaching would be considered desirable by the nation governed by Victoria I., will find that the Christian religion must be its foundation; he will also find, however, the builders on this foundation divided into two camps, and that in so marked a manner, that though in one of those there are other minor divisions, the name of Protestant is gloried in by all it embraces; while an entire submission to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is the distinguishing characteristic of the other. The gulf betwixt Protestants and Romanists is thus evidently much greater than betwixt any two subdivisions of the former; yet it may not be altogether impassable. Calvinists and Lutherans have the name Protestant in common, which expresses their common denial of Rome's arrogant Bishop's supremacy; but these Protestants must share the title of Christian with those who recognise this supremacy--a circumstance expressive of their agreement with them in certain fundamental positions. It seems therefore a fair question, whether or no this agreement can be turned to any practical account. It is, and has been the opinion of many great and good men, that it can—that it is possible to teach the Christianity common to both parties, without evil resulting from so incomplete a representation of the real scope of the subject. The Te Deum may be considered a summary of the doctrinal limits assigned to such teaching. Be this as it may; if the Romanists, numerically dominant in the greater part of Ireland, prefer sending their children to such elementary religious schools, the spirit of our Principle No. 2 pleads for the gratification of this desire, while Principal No. 6 does not forbid it. For the sake of justice, moreover, we would have no objections to the regulation that in Ireland only elementary-religious and secular schools should be established, to the exclusion of Protestant schools, as in Great Britain, only Protestant and secular schools to the exclusion of elementary-religious schools. It is no small pleasure to us to be able to express our approval of much already embodied in the system of National Education in Ireland. In fact, the mixed schools now in operation, have, we might almost say, merely to change their name to become elementary-religious schools. The only other change we would insist on, would be the withdrawal of the license given to clergymen of different denominations to impart religious instruction in the schools; to which we object, as being an abetting of the teaching of other religions than that of the nation, and which must tend to give the unhappy divisions among Christians unnecessary prominence in the eyes of the children. It surely speaks volumes in favour of our views, that without departing from the principles laid down, they can be rendered applicable to Ireland as well as to Britain, and that when thus applied, they so closely tally with those held by the most enlightened and liberal-minded men of our day.

As to the maintenance of the rdinances of religion in Ireland, we do not see how any church establishment can be either lawfully or else fairly maintained. In the case of the school, there exist secular and supra-secular elements—in that of the church only the latter. The school is the reflection of our every-day life, which has, indeed, chiefly to do with the things of time, but should at same time be pervaded by a sense of the existence of something higher. The church, like the Sabbath, is only concerned with the latter subject. No materials existing, which could be separated one from the other, “aut Cæsar, aut nullus” must be the church's motto, and no compromise is possible. There must either be Romanist or Protestant churches established, or none. The best plea in favour of a State Church is that of its being the church of the poor. It has ever been necessary, it has ever been customary, for the richer brethren to assist the poorer. The reason is obvious. Inequality is inherent in the temporal relationships of man-equality in the eternal. The Church is the organ of the latter, and must therefore bestow equal attention on every member, while they cannot render her equal returns. Rich men should give their children a liberal education, poor men have done their duty when they have educated them sufficiently; rich and poor alike need all that the Church can bestow. Where, however, as in Ireland, the only churches which the nation can conscientiously maintain would not fulfil this requirement, the upholding of such a State Church is not, we think, justifiable, unless it be as a missionary church, supported entirely by that portion of the nation from which it emanates. Let us cease to tax Ireland for ecclesiastical purposes, to perpetuate the artificial existence of a church of the few. Let such counties as are friendly to the existing state of things be incorporated with Great Britain in this particular respect, and in return for their contributions to the common fund, let Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches be provided for them as at present. Let an assault be made upon the strongholds of Romanism by means of Christian effort for the enlightenment of their denizens; and who knows but God will crown such efforts with ever-extending success? but Protestant Ireland will expand more and


more, until the Protestant Church will become that of the many, and her establishment a defensible act. We cannot help thinking that if the Episcopalian form of worship had been maintained in Ireland for three centuries as an instance of missionary enterprise on the part of the people of Great Britain, and not as a badge of tyranny, there would have been a very different account of the results. As said by no lukewarm partizan of Protestantism :* “Were I myself a Roman Catholic, I would have at once inferred that a religion associated with what I deemed injustice was a false, not a true religion, and on the strength of the inference would have rejected it without further inquiry;" and what would have probably done good if inaugurated in 1560 is just as likely to do so eventually if inaugurated in 1860, though a longer period may have to elapse, owing to the deeply-rooted prejudices, awakened by a long course of oppression, having to die out in the first place.

As to the provision which should be made for India in the matter of schools, it is a logical sequence from what has already been advanced, that secular schools in all localities, and Protestant schools in duly-qualified districts only, would constitute the proper machinery. Here, again, we joyfully yield our mead of approbation to the statesmen who have held sway over this colossal State. In a despatch on the subject of what is most justly styled Native-(not National) Education, issued in 1854, the East Indian Government invited the co-operation of all Christian schools in their arduous task, which is professedly the dissemination of secular knowledge, coupled with the observance of neutrality in religious instruction. The Government offers grants to Christian schools which respond to its call. Now, according to our principles, (if for “Christian” we could read “Protestant,") the Government is doing its duty in giving secular instruction, and justifiably gratifying a desire in assisting such schools out of the revenue; for if we have admitted that a mere numerical display would be entitled to—not aid—but maintenance by the Government, it is easy to see that, if coupled with a certain amount of voluntary contributions, it has a still stronger claim. In passing, we may notice that although sound in principle, in practice, the Indian secular scheme does not appear to so much advantage. Surely the introduction of Bacon, Milton, Johnson, Butler, Paley, and Addison into these schools, as subjects of polite literature, is not a little inconsistent.

It may not be superfluous to add that it must not be supposed that we would make it incumbent upon a nation to educate all the children in its dependencies. The idea of Denmark affording instruction to all the children in Greenland is preposterous. A person may consent to manage the affairs of another's family, but no one fancies that he thereby incurs the same responsibilities as are imposed by his own family. If he become executor for a poor man, why should his family suffer? if for a rich man, why should it profit thereby? Where all things are equal, the joint-stock principle should be acted on, but


* Hugh Miller, “My Schools and Schoolmasters,"

otherwise there may be liberality in-but there is no obligation forsuch a procedure. In like manner, things would come to a sad pass if, whenever a nation undertook or seized the management of another nation's affairs, it had thenceforth to do as much for its vassals as for its members. If it have equal power over both, and find the same resources in each, then only should the treatment be the same, though it should ever approximate as much as circumstances permit to this standard.

If our treatment of the two unfortunately situated countries of Ireland and India be approved of, as it is obvious that all similar cases of a complicated character will be found analogous to that of one or other,) the sole barrier to the universal application of our principles will have been removed, and ours will have been the happiness, the satisfaction, of having discovered what is in reality, and not merely in name, NATIONAL EDUCATION, the constructible safeguard of every nation, the securable blessing to every member.

This is a delightful book. The recollections of any


person who has mingled much with the world, and is possessed of sufficient ability to record the changeful features of the men and manners of the passing generation, cannot fail to be interesting. But when such reminiscences detail the important events of a stirring period of transition, and embody the writer's sincere impressions of long past events, and contain portraits taken under the advantage of personal intercourse with men who have filled no small space in the world's eye, as actors in scenes which have now become matter of historythe contribution to the literary stores of the age is not only interesting but valuable. If to all these advantages is added the rare quality of giving to everything spoken of that just proportion of importance which should be allowed to it, and the keeping the describer modestly behind the curtain so that his influence is rather felt than seen, the record, besides being interesting and valuable, becomes both useful and delightful

To a Scotsman who has any love for his fatherland, and who, notwithstanding the growing cosmopolitan feeling, takes an interest in the recent history of our country, social, moral, and political, this must be a fascinating book. It treats of times when Scotsmen were not ashamed to speak their native tongue, and of men who by their ability and knowledge rendered the metropolis of Scotland a rallying spot for all that was excellent in science and literature. The period during wbich Cockburn lived witnessed many changes and the introduction of some great improvements. The generation which was passing from the stage when he was born, was largely sprinkled with men who had taken no inactive part in the last civil war waged in this island, and which, although it had left some



[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »